Dejan Šoškić, a prominent figure within Serbia’s Students’ List, has clarified that elected representatives from the movement will exercise autonomy in legislative matters, aligning with constitutional provisions. This announcement, made during an appearance on the television program “Utisak Nedelje” with Olja Bećković, marks a significant shift in the governance approach of the Students’ List, which recently won the parliamentary elections. Šoškić emphasized that the future government will operate within a standard political framework, distinct from the student plenums that have historically guided decision-making within the movement.

Šoškić’s statements come at a pivotal moment for the Students’ List, which emerged victorious in the October 2026 elections, ending the long-standing dominance of the Serbian Progressive Party. His comments suggest a transition from the collective decision-making processes of student plenums to a more conventional parliamentary system, where elected officials will independently utilize their mandates as per the legal and constitutional norms.

During the program, Bećković questioned whether future ministers and the Prime Minister would need to consult student plenums for major decisions. Šoškić responded unequivocally, asserting that the elected representatives will have the independence to make decisions, as is typical in democratic systems across Europe. “Students know that this group of elected individuals from the Students’ List, who will enter the parliament, become the owners of their mandates by law and decide independently,” Šoškić stated.

This development raises questions about the future role of student plenums, which have been a cornerstone of the Students’ List’s political identity. The plenums have traditionally served as forums for collective decision-making and political organization, particularly during protests. However, with the shift towards a parliamentary system, it remains uncertain how these bodies will influence decision-making once their representatives assume official roles within the government.

Šoškić’s clarification is crucial as it delineates the separation between the movement’s grassroots origins and its forthcoming responsibilities in governance. He highlighted that the transition to institutional roles would involve adhering to constitutional mandates, where representatives exercise their duties without binding instructions from external bodies, including the plenums.

The implications of this shift are significant, as it may redefine the relationship between the Students’ List and its foundational student-led mechanisms. While Šoškić’s remarks underscore a commitment to constitutional governance, they also open a dialogue about the potential tensions between maintaining the movement’s original ethos and adapting to the demands of political office.

As the Students’ List prepares to form a government, the movement faces the challenge of integrating its participatory roots with the expectations of parliamentary governance. The future dynamics between elected officials and the student plenums will be closely watched, as they could impact the movement’s ability to implement its agenda effectively while staying true to its origins.

Šoškić also mentioned that the students have agreed on who will serve as the President of the National Assembly, with the name to be announced by the student movement. This decision is part of the ongoing process of constituting the new parliament, which will mark the beginning of what Šoškić described as a “normal political process.”

The Students’ List’s transition from a protest movement to a governing body represents a significant moment in Serbian politics, reflecting broader changes in the country’s political landscape. As the movement navigates this transition, the balance between autonomy and collective decision-making will be crucial in shaping its future governance model.